Where does brain neural activation in aesthetic responses to visual art occur? Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies

Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

Volumn 60, Issue , 2016, Pages 65-71

  Boccia, M ^a,b   Barbetti, S ^a,b   Piccardi, L ^b,c   Guariglia, C ^a,b   Ferlazzo, F ^a   Giannini, A M ^a   Zaidel, D W ^d  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b IRCCS FONDAZIONE SANTA LUCIA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF L'AQUILA   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Beauty and brain; Beauty meta analysis; Brain and art; FMRI; Neuroaesthetics; Neuroimaging

Indexed keywords

ACTIVATION LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; AMYGDALOID NUCLEUS; ANTERIOR CINGULATE; ART; CONNECTOME; DEFAULT MODE NETWORK; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FUSIFORM GYRUS; HUMAN; INFERIOR FRONTAL GYRUS; INFERIOR OCCIPITAL GYRUS; INSULA; LINGUAL GYRUS; MIDDLE FRONTAL GYRUS; MIDDLE OCCIPITAL GYRUS; MIDDLE TEMPORAL GYRUS; NERVE POTENTIAL; NERVOUS SYSTEM PARAMETERS; OCCIPITAL GYRUS; PAINTING; PARAHIPPOCAMPAL GYRUS; POSTERIOR CINGULATE; PRECUNEUS; PRIMARY MOTOR CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RETROSPLENIAL CORTEX; REVIEW; SUPERIOR PARIETAL LOBULE; VENTRAL VISUAL STREAM; VISUAL AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ESTHETICS; META ANALYSIS; PHYSIOLOGY; VISION;

BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ESTHETICS; HUMANS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84949309680     PISSN: 01497634     EISSN: 18737528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.009     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Ahs F., Davis F.C., Gorka A.X., Hariri A.R. Feature-based representations of emotional facial expressions in the human amygdala. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2013, nst112. 10.1093/scan/nst112.
2. Amoruso L. Beyond extrastriate body area (EBA) and fusiform body area (FBA): context integration in the meaning of actions. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2011, 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00124.
3. Boccia M., Nemmi F., Guariglia C. Neuropsychology of environmental navigation in humans: review and meta-analysis of fMRI studies in healthy participants. Neuropsychol. Rev. 2014, 24:236-251. 10.1007/s11065-014-9247-8.
4. Boccia M., Nemmi F., Tizzani E., Guariglia C., Ferlazzo F., Galati G., Giannini a.M. Do you like Arcimboldo's? Esthetic appreciation modulates brain activity in solving perceptual ambiguity. Behav. Brain Res. 2015, 278:147-154. 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.09.041.
5. Brandman T., Yovel G. Bodies are represented as wholes rather than their sum of parts in the occipital-temporal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 2014, 10.1093/cercor/bhu205.
6. Brown S., Gao X., Tisdelle L., Eickhoff S.B., Liotti M. Naturalizing aesthetics: brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. Neuroimage 2011, 58:250-258. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.012.
7. Buckner R.L., Andrews-Hanna J.R., Schacter D.L. The brain's default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2008, 1124:1-38. 10.1196/annals.1440.011.
8. Cela-Conde C., Ayala F. Brain keys in the appreciation of beauty: a tale of two worlds. Rend. Lincei 2014, 25:277-284. 10.1007/s12210-014-0299-8.
9. Cela-Conde C.J., Agnati L., Huston J.P., Mora F., Nadal M. The neural foundations of aesthetic appreciation. Prog. Neurobiol. 2011, 94:39-48. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.03.003.
10. Cela-Conde C.J., García-Prieto J., Ramasco J.J., Mirasso C.R., Bajo R., Munar E., Flexas A., del-Pozo F., Maestú F. Dynamics of brain networks in the aesthetic appreciation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110(Suppl):10454-10461. 10.1073/pnas.1302855110.
11. Chatterjee A. Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. Bull. Psychol. Arts 2004, 4:56-60.
12. Chatterjee A., Thomas A., Smith S.E., Aguirre G.K. The neural response to facial attractiveness. Neuropsychology 2009, 23:135-143. 10.1037/a0014430.
13. Chatterjee A., Vartanian O. Neuroaesthetics. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2014, 18:370-375. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003.
14. Cunningham W.A., Raye C.L., Johnson M.K. Implicit and explicit evaluation: FMRI correlates of valence, emotional intensity, and control in the processing of attitudes. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2004, 16:1717-1729. 10.1162/0898929042947919.
15. Cupchik G.C. From perception to production: a multilevel analysis of the aesthetic process. Emerging Visions of the Aesthetic Process 1992, 83-99. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. G.C. Cupchik, J. Laszlo (Eds.).
16. Cupchik G.C., Vartanian O., Crawley A., Mikulis D.J. Viewing artworks: contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain Cogn. 2009, 70:84-91. 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.003.
17. Cupchik G.C., Winston A.S. Confluence and divergence in empirical aesthetics, philosophy, and mainstream psychology. Cogntive Ecology 1996, 62-85. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. E.C. Carterette, M.P. Friedman (Eds.).
18. Di Dio C., Gallese V. Neuroaesthetics: a review. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2009, 19:682-687. 10.1016/j.conb.2009.09.001.
19. Di Dio C., Macaluso E., Rizzolatti G. The golden beauty: brain response to classical and renaissance sculptures. PLoS ONE 2007, 2. 10.1371/journal.pone.0001201.
20. Di Dio C., Canessa N., Cappa S.F., Rizzolatti G. Specificity of esthetic experience for artworks: an fMRI study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2011, 5:1-14. 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00139.
21. Downing P.E., Jiang Y., Shuman M., Kanwisher N. A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. Science 2001, 293:2470-2473. 10.1126/science.1063414.
22. Eickhoff S.B., Laird A.R., Grefkes C., Wang L.E., Zilles K., Fox P.T. Coordinate-based activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of neuroimaging data: a random-effects approach based on empirical estimates of spatial uncertainty. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2009, 30:2907-2926. 10.1002/hbm.20718.
23. Epstein R., Harris A., Stanley D., Kanwisher N. The parahippocampal place area: recognition, navigation, or encoding?. Neuron 1999, 23:115-125. 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80758-8.
24. Epstein R., Kanwisher N. A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature 1998, 392:598-601.
25. Flexas A., Rosselló J., de Miguel P., Nadal M., Munar E. Cognitive control and unusual decisions about beauty: an fMRI study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014, 8:1-9. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00520.
26. Greicius M.D., Krasnow B., Reiss A.L., Menon V. Functional connectivity in the resting brain: a network analysis of the default mode hypothesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100:253-258. 10.1073/pnas.0135058100.
27. Hagtvedt H., Patrick V. The influence of art infusion on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Adv. Consum. Res. 2008, 35:795-796.
28. Ishizu T., Zeki S. The brain's specialized systems for aesthetic and perceptual judgment. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2013, 37:1413-1420. 10.1111/ejn.12135.
29. Ishizu T., Zeki S. Toward a brain-based theory of beauty. PLoS ONE 2011, 6. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021852.
30. Jacobsen T., Schubotz R.I., Höfel L., Cramon D.Y.V. Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. Neuroimage 2006, 29:276-285. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.010.
31. Kant I. Critique of judgment. Critique of Judgement 1790, 97-199. 10.1515/KANT.2007.020.
32. Kanwisher N., McDermott J., Chun M.M. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J. Neurosci. 1997, 17:4302-4311. 10.1098/Rstb.2006.1934.
33. Kawabata H., Zeki S. Neural correlates of beauty. J. Neurophysiol. 2004, 91:1699-1705. 10.1152/jn.00696.2003.
34. Kirk U., Skov M., Christensen M.S., Nygaard N. Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: a parametric fMRI study. Brain Cogn. 2009, 69:306-315. 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.004.
35. Kirk U., Skov M., Hulme O., Christensen M.S., Zeki S. Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 2009, 44:1125-1132. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009.
36. Lacey S., Hagtvedt H., Patrick V.M., Anderson A., Stilla R., Deshpande G., Hu X., Sato J.R., Reddy S., Sathian K. Art for reward's sake: visual art recruits the ventral striatum. Neuroimage 2011, 55:420-433. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.027.
37. Leech R., Sharp D.J. The role of the posterior cingulate cortex in cognition and disease. Brain 2014, 10.1093/brain/awt162.
38. Marković S. Components of aesthetic experience: aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. Iperception 2012, 3:1-17. 10.1068/i0450aap.
39. Mizokami Y., Terao T., Hatano K., Kodama K., Kohno K., Makino M., Hoaki N., Araki Y., Izumi T., Shimomura T., Fujiki M., Kochiyama T. Identification of the neural correlates of cyclothymic temperament using an esthetic judgment for paintings task in fMRI. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 169:47-50. 10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.037.
40. Munar E., Nadal M., Castellanos N.P., Flexas A., Maestú F., Mirasso C., Cela-Conde C.J. Aesthetic appreciation: event-related field and time-frequency analyses. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2012, 5:1-11. 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00185.
41. Nadal M. The experience of art. Insights from neuroimaging. Prog. Brain Res. 2013, 204:135-158. 10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00007-5.
42. Pessoa L. On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008, 9:148-158. 10.1038/nrn2317.
43. Pöppel E., Avram M., Bao Y., Graupmann V., Gutyrchik E., Lutz A., Park M., Reiser M., Russell E., Silveira S., Smigielski L., Szymanski C., Zaytseva Y. Sensory processing of art as a unique window into cognitive mechanisms: evidence from behavioral experiments and fMRI studies. Procedia -Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 86:10-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.517.
44. Rolls E.T., Grabenhorst F. The orbitofrontal cortex and beyond: from affect to decision-making. Prog. Neurobiol. 2008, 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2008.09.001.
45. Schopenhauer A. The World as Will and Representation. Trans E. J. Payne, Trans. 1969, vol. 1. Dover, New York, NY.
46. Taylor J.C., Wiggett A.J., Downing P.E. Functional MRI analysis of body and body part representations in the extrastriate and fusiform body areas. J. Neurophysiol. 2007, 98:1626-1633. 10.1152/jn.00012.2007.
47. Tsakiris M., Hesse M.D., Boy C., Haggard P., Fink G.R. Neural signatures of body ownership: a sensory network for bodily self-consciousness. Cereb. Cortex 2007, 17:2235-2244. 10.1093/cercor/bhl131.
48. Vartanian O., Goel V. Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. Neuroreport 2004, 15:893-897. 10.1097/00001756-200404090-00032.
49. Vartanian O., Navarrete G., Chatterjee A., Fich L.B., Leder H., Modroño C., Nadal M., Rostrup N., Skov M. Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110(Suppl):10446-10453. 10.1073/pnas.1301227110.
50. Vartanian O., Skov M. Neural correlates of viewing paintings: evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Brain Cogn. 2014, 87:52-56. 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.03.004.
51. Vessel E.A., Starr G.G., Rubin N. The brain on art: intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode network. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2012, 6:1-17. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00066.
52. Yeh Y., Lin C.-W., Hsu W.-C., Kuo W.-J., Chan Y.-C. Associated and dissociated neural substrates of aesthetic judgment and aesthetic emotion during the appreciation of everyday designed products. Neuropsychologia 2015, 73:151-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.05.010.
53. Zaidel D.W. Neuroesthetics is not just about art. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9:80. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00080.
54. Zaidel D.W. Neuropsychology of Art: Neurological, Cognitive, and Evolutionary Perspectives 2005, Psychology Press, England, ISBN 10: 1841693634.